About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat
, the deficit reduction first. you have to pay the bills. in your personal and public life -- you want to have a prescription drug benefits under medicare, that is great, you have to pay for it. you want two wars? you have to pay for them, too. we should understand something about the republican party over the last and years. it has been a big spending party -- it just does not want to pay for any of the spending. a reset of traditional conservatism requires that we be reality-based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of profligacy now require increased revenue. the notion that we have hundreds of members of congress bound by a pledge to grover norquist as opposed to their oath of office to the constitution -- [applause] is unsettling. we should understand, there is not symmetry between the parties on this question. there is no grover norquist equivalent in the democratic party on this question. it is encouraging to hear speaker boehner and republicans talk about the need to increase revenues. my personal opinion, which is why i am a republican in part, a 40% f
rate will necessarily go up. we talk about debt and deficit in this chamber, if we remember less than 12 years ago, 12 years ago we hit a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. meaning that we were taking in $258 billion more in each year than we were spending. how was that possible? it was made possible by having created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous eight years. . what was the policy then? the policy was to invest in the american economy, in the american people, in education, in scientific research, and infrastructure. so i think the lessons from our most recent past are very instructive today as to what we should be doing in washington to promote growth. the gentleman from california spoke of a plan i was working on, that's a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding the roads and bridges of america. that plan, advanced by the new america foundation, would create 27 million private sector jobs in five years. the first year alone, over five million jobs which would reduce the current employment rate from where it is today to 6.4% and in the second year, 5.2%. now public in
are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we worked on budgets and the defense department. i do not believe we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. we are at the pentagon is implementing a strategy that we put together in order to deal with the fiscal challenge we are presented. congress handed us $487 billion to reduce the deficit -- the defense budgets over 10 years. my approach was to say, wait a minute. we are not just going to cut across the board. we are not just going to hollow out the force as we have done in the past. every time we have come out of the war, whether it was korea, vietnam, the cold war, we cut the budget across the board, and we hollowed out the force. we are not going to repeat that mistake, so for that reason, i said to my service chiefs, chairman of the joint chiefs, we have got to sit down and develop a strategy for the future that will provide the defense force for the 21st centu
is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp aventurine stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed -- and eventually stabilize or declined, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the he
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)